I've played another game that is like Conquer Club and in that game i've played in a way that you can only attack adjacent countries.

Example: Classic Map

If you are in Brazil, you're attack options are; Venezuela, Peru, Argentina and North Africa. You can attack any of these countries on your turn but you can't continue past that.

I think it would be great to have this option at the start of a game because I feel this adds another stradegy element to the game.

I also like the way it is now where you can start in Brazil and attack North America, Egypt, Middle East, India and then China. They both have thier pros and cons but like I said, I think it would be a nice option to have when you are starting or searching for a game.

***Another example from page 2 of this thread.

3seven1 wrote:Round 10:One of the territories I own is Congo in Africa. Congo has 20 attackers on it. I can attack North Africa, East Africa or South Africa.I attack South Africa and put 5 attackers there to defend incase of an attack from Madagascar.I also attack North Africa and East Africa and i'm so lucky that I don't lose 1 time so I leave seven attackers in each territory and leave one behind in Congo. 7 + 7 + 5 + 1 is all 20. Now that i've attacked with those armies I can't attack with them again until my next turn.

If I have other territories with multiple attackers I can attack with those too, but only to touching territories.

The way the game is now, I can attack North Africa, Brazil, Venezuela, Central America...yada yada yada until i'm out of armies. I call that chain attacking.

I think this example is a little more clear than my first one. Is it still stupid or do you think this sounds like a good option to have?

Please post your thoughts. Good idea? Bad idea? Why?

Last edited by 3seven1 on Fri Aug 03, 2007 9:28 am, edited 2 times in total.

I think this is a very interesting idea.
It fits along the same lines as the "unlimited adjacent fortifications" Both great ideas that I'm all for. They are the most realistic, in that in real life troops can only move so far in an amount of time. But different troops in different places can move at the same time (duh)
I would really like this (and the unlimited adjacent) to be put into affect as options. But it seems they arent too keen on doing this, since I'm sure its not the easiest feature to add, and it seems only a few of us are really interested in it.

I really don't think it adds that much to the gameplay strategy that the site already has. In most games a player will only take 1 or 2 countries in order not to spread themselves to thin, they do this especially in games with No Cards, or Adjacent and Chained fortifications because they can't move their armies around as easily.

In the end, it doesn't change the game dynamic that much at all. The only thing it would change is that at the end of the game players couldn't take out another player all at once, which would do several things:

1. Really piss people off because it would completely eliminate the desperate grab for cards to make a resurgence to stay in a game which everyone does at some point or another and would be lying if they said differently.

2. It would completely defeat the purpose of an escalating card game, they would be completely worthless and do nothing but turn into "build" games that very few players on this site actually like.

3. There would inevitably be many complaints due to a complete misunderstanding of what was going on.

I'm sure there are several others I'm not thinking of right now, but those are the basics.

But i'm not suggesting this as a new ONLY option. Just an option that you can check if you are making a new game or an option you can check if you are using game finder. If you don't want to play that way, then don't.

You are have good things to say, but to me it sounds like you are judging this idea as if it was going to be the ONLY way to play. I wouldn't want to play like this every time I play, but i'd like to play once in a while.

I got this idea from playing the board game Risk tm. Later when I downloaded Risk 2 for my PC, it had both options. Risk for PS2 doesn't have this option and is played the way this site is played. I like both ways so that why i'm suggesting this. Just as an option.

Well I really hope this option floats his boat. I think it would be a great addition. Are there any other opinions out there? I'd love to hear from more people.

I have a response to this post beast.

BeastofBurson wrote:ok...your on your way to taking out somebody that has 5 cards...escalating......

you can only go 1 country out.....you have no other armies around them..but alas...they have 1 more territoy that you could take if you just were able to attack 1 more terit forward...

guess what happens?...he turns his cards in for 40 armies..then just anialates you 1 terit at a time...because you can't take another terit to get another card...

I don't think this will fly..I wouldn't play it thats for sure

This would just be something you'd have to plan for. Maybe by not leaving all your armies on one spot. Also, if it were me who started the game, I wouldn't choose Escalating Bonus Cards. I'm a flat rate kinda guy myself. But to each is own I guess. I think that Escalating bonus cards leads to one putting all his/her armies on one spot and the destorying a path all across the map.

Having adjacent attacks as an option would require more ...thought (i'm not sure if that's the right word to use) when fortifying your armies.

3seven1 wrote:I've played another game that is like Conquer Club and in that game i've played in a way that you can only attack adjacent countries.

Example: Classic Map

If you are in Brazil, you're attack options are; Venezuela, Peru, Argentina and North Africa. You can attack any of these countries on your turn but you can't continue past that.

I think it would be great to have this option at the start of a game because I feel this adds another stradegy element to the game.

I also like the way it is now where you can start in Brazil and attack North America, Egypt, Middle East, India and then China. They both have thier pros and cons but like I said, I think it would be a nice option to have when you are starting or searching for a game.

Please post your thoughts. Good idea? Bad idea? Why?

No, it is not a good idea, even as an option, because no one would ever want to play it.

Why the hell would you only want to attack one territory late in the game?
It would draw out games for months, or even years, and, for what, so you can have a few games, with this moronic setting?

I believe that the mods would agree, this would be a pointless option, and I believe that they aren't really looking to clog up the "Start a game" Scree with too many more options.

GunnaRoolsUDrool wrote:yo mama has 3 titties, ones for milk, ones for water, ones out of order

3seven1 wrote:I've played another game that is like Conquer Club and in that game i've played in a way that you can only attack adjacent countries.

Example: Classic Map

If you are in Brazil, you're attack options are; Venezuela, Peru, Argentina and North Africa. You can attack any of these countries on your turn but you can't continue past that.

I think it would be great to have this option at the start of a game because I feel this adds another stradegy element to the game.

I also like the way it is now where you can start in Brazil and attack North America, Egypt, Middle East, India and then China. They both have thier pros and cons but like I said, I think it would be a nice option to have when you are starting or searching for a game.

Please post your thoughts. Good idea? Bad idea? Why?

No, it is not a good idea, even as an option, because no one would ever want to play it.

Why the hell would you only want to attack one territory late in the game?It would draw out games for months, or even years, and, for what, so you can have a few games, with this moronic setting?

I believe that the mods would agree, this would be a pointless option, and I believe that they aren't really looking to clog up the "Start a game" Scree with too many more options.

Please, don't hold back, tell us how you really feel.

You're first statement is wrong simply because I would want to play it. But just so i'm sure you understand, it's not that you can only attack one territory per move, it would mean that you can only attack territories you are touching. However, I think you're right when you say it would make the games longer but I don't see that as a bad thing. You'd still be able to fortify at the end of your turn. Therefore, you'd be able to get your armies closer to the enemy...depending on the fortification option you've chosen.

Last edited by 3seven1 on Fri Aug 03, 2007 1:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

3seven1 wrote:I've played another game that is like Conquer Club and in that game i've played in a way that you can only attack adjacent countries.

Example: Classic Map

If you are in Brazil, you're attack options are; Venezuela, Peru, Argentina and North Africa. You can attack any of these countries on your turn but you can't continue past that.

I think it would be great to have this option at the start of a game because I feel this adds another stradegy element to the game.

I also like the way it is now where you can start in Brazil and attack North America, Egypt, Middle East, India and then China. They both have thier pros and cons but like I said, I think it would be a nice option to have when you are starting or searching for a game.

Please post your thoughts. Good idea? Bad idea? Why?

That's not what you said..
Read the part I put in bold, then the part I put larger.

You contradicted yourself, so either edit it to make it how you want to convey your ideas, or my remarks remain

GunnaRoolsUDrool wrote:yo mama has 3 titties, ones for milk, ones for water, ones out of order

3seven1 wrote:I've played another game that is like Conquer Club and in that game i've played in a way that you can only attack adjacent countries.

Example: Classic Map

If you are in Brazil, you're attack options are; Venezuela, Peru, Argentina and North Africa. You can attack any of these countries on your turn but you can't continue past that.

I think it would be great to have this option at the start of a game because I feel this adds another stradegy element to the game.

I also like the way it is now where you can start in Brazil and attack North America, Egypt, Middle East, India and then China. They both have thier pros and cons but like I said, I think it would be a nice option to have when you are starting or searching for a game.

Please post your thoughts. Good idea? Bad idea? Why?

That's not what you said..Read the part I put in bold, then the part I put larger.

You contradicted yourself, so either edit it to make it how you want to convey your ideas, or my remarks remain

Yes, but that would be if you only had one territory. If you happen to have more than one territory you can attack with those as well.

3seven1 wrote:I've played another game that is like Conquer Club and in that game i've played in a way that you can only attack adjacent countries.

Example: Classic Map

If you are in Brazil, you're attack options are; Venezuela, Peru, Argentina and North Africa. You can attack any of these countries on your turn but you can't continue past that.

I think it would be great to have this option at the start of a game because I feel this adds another stradegy element to the game.

I also like the way it is now where you can start in Brazil and attack North America, Egypt, Middle East, India and then China. They both have thier pros and cons but like I said, I think it would be a nice option to have when you are starting or searching for a game.

Please post your thoughts. Good idea? Bad idea? Why?

That's not what you said..Read the part I put in bold, then the part I put larger.

You contradicted yourself, so either edit it to make it how you want to convey your ideas, or my remarks remain

Yes, but that would be if you only had one territory. If you happen to have more than one territory you can attack with those as well.

Then this is exactly how you play the game, you attack from one to another, then attack from there to another territory.

As for your second idea, it's even more stupid.

GunnaRoolsUDrool wrote:yo mama has 3 titties, ones for milk, ones for water, ones out of order

You have me confused now. I'm not sure if you understand what i'm saying. I'll give another example just to be sure we're on the same page here.

Round 10:
One of the territories I own is Congo in Africa. Congo has 20 attackers on it. I can attack North Africa, East Africa or South Africa.
I attack South Africa and put 5 attackers there to defend incase of an attack from Madagascar.
I also attack North Africa and East Africa and i'm so lucky that I don't lose 1 time so I leave seven attackers in each territory and leave one behind in Congo. 7 + 7 + 5 + 1 is all 20. Now that i've attacked with those armies I can't attack with them again until my next turn.

If I have other territories with multiple attackers I can attack with those too, but only to touching territories.

The way the game is now, I can attack North Africa, Brazil, Venezuela, Central America...yada yada yada until i'm out of armies. I call that chain attacking.

I think this example is a little more clear than my first one. Is it still stupid or do you think this sounds like a good option to have?

Last edited by 3seven1 on Fri Aug 03, 2007 9:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

3seven1 wrote:You have me confused now. I'm not sure if you understand what i'm saying. I'll give another example just to be sure we're on the same page here.

Round 10:One of the territories I own is Congo in Africa. Congo has 20 attackers on it. I can attack North Africa, East Africa or South Africa.I attack South Africa and put 5 attackers there to defend incase of an attack from Madagascar.I also attack North Africa and East Africa and i'm so luck that I don't lose 1 time so I leave seven attackers in each territory and leave one behind in Congo. 7 + 7 + 5 + 1 is all 20. Now that i've attack with those armies I can't attack with them again until my next turn.

If I have other territories with multiple attackers I can attack with those too, but only to touching territories.

The way the game is now, I can attack North Africa, Brazil, Venezuela, Central America...yada yada yada until i'm out of armies. I call that chain attacking.

I think this example is a little more clear than my first one. Is it still stupid or do you think this sounds like a good option to have?

What's to stop me from advancing all my armies and attacking another territory that is not touching Congo?

It's still adjacent to South Africa, where I just attacked, isn't it?

Secondly, people play freestyle more then they would play this.
Lack will NEVER and I repeat NEVER get rid of Freestyle, because thats the first game type there was

GunnaRoolsUDrool wrote:yo mama has 3 titties, ones for milk, ones for water, ones out of order

3seven1 wrote:You have me confused now. I'm not sure if you understand what i'm saying. I'll give another example just to be sure we're on the same page here.

Round 10:One of the territories I own is Congo in Africa. Congo has 20 attackers on it. I can attack North Africa, East Africa or South Africa.I attack South Africa and put 5 attackers there to defend incase of an attack from Madagascar.I also attack North Africa and East Africa and i'm so luck that I don't lose 1 time so I leave seven attackers in each territory and leave one behind in Congo. 7 + 7 + 5 + 1 is all 20. Now that i've attack with those armies I can't attack with them again until my next turn.

If I have other territories with multiple attackers I can attack with those too, but only to touching territories.

The way the game is now, I can attack North Africa, Brazil, Venezuela, Central America...yada yada yada until i'm out of armies. I call that chain attacking.

I think this example is a little more clear than my first one. Is it still stupid or do you think this sounds like a good option to have?

What's to stop me from advancing all my armies and attacking another territory that is not touching Congo?

It's still adjacent to South Africa, where I just attacked, isn't it?

Secondly, people play freestyle more then they would play this.Lack will NEVER and I repeat NEVER get rid of Freestyle, because thats the first game type there was

The only thing that would stop you is whatever code lack would use to make this style of game play a reality. You wouldn't be able to "chain attack" so you'd have to plan your battles with that in mind.

RE: Freestyle. I didn't know that was the first type of play. I guess there is no getting rid of it.

3seven1 wrote:You have me confused now. I'm not sure if you understand what i'm saying. I'll give another example just to be sure we're on the same page here.

Round 10:One of the territories I own is Congo in Africa. Congo has 20 attackers on it. I can attack North Africa, East Africa or South Africa.I attack South Africa and put 5 attackers there to defend incase of an attack from Madagascar.I also attack North Africa and East Africa and i'm so lucky that I don't lose 1 time so I leave seven attackers in each territory and leave one behind in Congo. 7 + 7 + 5 + 1 is all 20. Now that i've attacked with those armies I can't attack with them again until my next turn.

If I have other territories with multiple attackers I can attack with those too, but only to touching territories.

The way the game is now, I can attack North Africa, Brazil, Venezuela, Central America...yada yada yada until i'm out of armies. I call that chain attacking.

I think this example is a little more clear than my first one. Is it still stupid or do you think this sounds like a good option to have?

but thats the situation that my first post was about...what if your opponent has 40 sitting Weastern Europe

hes obviously gonna have alot of bonus armies...to add to it....

and they will probably have enough fortifications near your other areas to thwart off any attacks you might try.....

so he attacks North Africa...loses 2 you lose 7...he then attacks Egypt...he loses 5 you lose 7...your now down to 6...he still has 33.....plus whatever he deployed....

your not gonna even come close to winning with that type of force.....so why make that person wait another 24 hours to get the game over with?

why prolong the inevitable?

doesn't make sense at all

I mean like I said lack may go for it...but its not an option that the greater portion of members would use...

I doubt lack will do it for 10 players that want to use it

he would want to see that the majority of the members are for it before he spends hours or even days or weeks coding something like that into the scripts.....

you asked for opinions and we're giving them to you....its just our opinion's that YOU asked for

Dancing Mustard wrote:Are you flirting with me? Your angry posts are just the equivalent of school-yard pigtail-pulling.

wicked wrote:We like to give the mental patients a chance to get back on their meds.